Tag Archives: Boris Johnson

Working with Germany again?

This is the direct sentiment that came to mind. When I see ‘Boris Johnson should be jailed over Brexit claims, says ex-David Davis aide‘ (at https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/aug/09/brexit-political-party-james-chapman-david-davis) my initial thought was that someone did not like Boris Johnson. Now, that is fair enough. We all have loads of issues with one politician or another. The do not always serve our cup of tea and some politicians never will. It is merely the nature of things. So I started to read, as I was interested who had a go at the only politician in Britain who has a worse hairstyle than President Trump. So here we are looking at James Chapman and what this is about. The quote: “The former chief of staff to David Davis has said Brexit is a catastrophe“. My first question becomes ‘How so?

Let’s take a simple look.

So far Brexit has not even started, the Pro-EU cabinet members have often too much personal issues in this and there is no evidence at all that it is a catastrophe. We knew there would be hard times for all was never in doubt. Yet at present we are being downed by ‘fake news’, false reports drowning in fearmongering that usually have disaster headlines with the included word ‘could’.

When we look deeper into these articles we get emotions and the clear indications that they just don’t know. In my view James Chapman would be the kind of Englishman who would see in 1939 if ‘mutual coexistence‘ would be an option between Germany and England. Do you remember how that ended?

Now consider the top 10 headlines when I search for ‘Brexit’:

  1. Britain’s Brexit negotiators denied water by Brussels during divorce talks, civil servant claims
  2. No agreement in latest Scots-UK Brexit powers talks
  3. There are whispers in Whitehall about a ‘soft landing’ Brexit
  4. BREXIT BOOM: Surge in UK investment after EU exit as firms to spend less on European staff
  5. Courts will STILL be ruled by EU even AFTER Brexit, warns senior Tory MP
  6. Britain told to WAKE UP by ex-Irish minister who says fury over Brexit could BOIL OVER
  7. Brexit fears lead to hike in UK foreign currency accounts
  8. Bank of England warns Brexit will put strain on regulatory resources
  9. The Bank of England is reviewing more than 400 firms’ Brexit plans and there are ‘significant issues’
  10. Employers struggle to recruit staff as applications drop due to Brexit

So the reds are all what I would regard as utter (read: mostly) BS issues, dripped in what we should call stupefied emotions. And they are on both the pro and anti Brexit sides mind you. One of them is about ‘whispers‘, which is basically the jump to gossip as there are no facts, there are no resolutions and the people in Whitehall seem to be utterly clueless on what is happening. Part of that is shown even better when we consider Sky News with ‘Deloitte feels Whitehall thaw after Brexit memo sparked fury‘ (at http://news.sky.com/story/deloitte-feels-whitehall-thaw-after-brexit-memo-sparked-fury-10968774). So when we see “Sky News has learnt that Deloitte has in recent weeks begun participating in at least one central Government tender process“, in this the part ‘begun participating‘ implies that they were awaiting some sort of resolution, so they stopped participating, waiting for the dust to settle and now they feel a thaw? With: “The crisis in Deloitte’s relationship with the Government was sparked last November by a consultant working for the firm. His memo had not been commissioned by ministers or civil servants. It referred to a lack of Government preparation and “divisions with the Cabinet” over the Government’s Brexit priorities – ironically, both criticisms which have been levelled at Mrs May’s administration with increasing frequency in recent weeks.“, as well as “Deloitte’s memo prompted an apology from the global accountancy firm, saying: “This was a note intended primarily for internal audiences“, which as I personally see it was a blooper of the first rate and someone was upset with Deloitte. So it seems that someone’s memo, not the Brexit part was to blame in all this. The news is littered with these fearmongering acts all over the media.

Now the Orange headlines are basically emotional parts. First the Irish Prime Minister, you might remember how Ireland started to defend Apple regarding taxation not paid. So as we see its prime minister with the quote “Irish prime minister Leo Varadkar has signalled he is prepared to delay the ongoing Brexit talks unless he is satisfied with any post-Brexit agreement over the issue of the Irish border” that he is very willing to be an Irish pain in the ass on issues that have several unknowns, which means that there is no given answer. I am going with the part that someone elected as Prime Minister should be aware of that, or easier stated ‘he ain’t that stupid!‘, by the way, how is that €15 billion being spend? We can consider that the statement “I think it’s time that there’s an outbreak of common sense in London and that people who decide that solutions have to be looked at, all solutions have to be looked at and it’s particularly sensitive given the context on the island of Ireland“, is pretty valid, there is no denying it, yet when Ireland decided to set its nation up as a tax haven, how much consideration and information was given to the UK? The spring goes both ways Mr Roche, I admit that he is not wrong, yet he is playing a political game (one he is allowed to do mind you), and we need to acknowledge that the political game is about personal gain for Ireland (also a valid tactic), so let’s not blame Brexit for unknown quantities at present. There is one exception, with item number 7 we see that the media fears have moved people to shifted their accounts with currencies. The fact that we see spikes of 23% is one indication. You see, in the end the people will lose there, the banks will win no matter how it all goes. It takes one emotional article for the people to shift to the German Mark or the American Dollar, yet in this, unless you keep your eye on the ball 24:7 you basically end up losing in the end, the amount might be small, yet with the transfer fees and administration you will still take a hit. So as people shift to the Euro, whilst we saw 2 days ago in the Business Times “high debt burdens and aggressive valuations will conspire to crimp capital gains on European bonds this late in the global credit cycle” In addition there is the fact that several senior economic voices are now worried on the bond bubble and that it might burst, so as we realise that Mario Draghi has €2 trillion in junk bonds, what do you expect to happen to the Euro? Those who moved to the Euro face the risk (again, I state the risk) of losing 5%-10%, when you have a £2000 in your account, you basically withdrew £100-£200 and flushed it through the toilet. How will you feel when you face that? I believe that those not used to the currency market, shifting left to right face a few risks, yet the chance of actual gain tends to be too small for the effort. As i see it, the juice ain’t worth the squeeze.

The greens are partially (read: mostly) valid, they are news and as such we should not object, yet it is a mere 30% of a 90% trashed value of media, parts all are ignoring and too many people are getting dragged in the emotional tsunami of exploitative media. It is the Business Insider Australia article that is on point, and the only article in blue (at https://www.businessinsider.com.au/sam-woods-update-on-brexit-2017-8), filled with decent news and actual information. With “Woods said a cliff-edge Brexit would pose a risk to financial stability, and proposed a transition period” we see the need for some level of soft Brexit, which is fair enough. My question becomes on the term ‘risk to financial stability‘, just how much of a risk and what the impact could be, both the best and worst case scenario’s. If there was a speculated percentage to some degree (with clear warnings of speculation), that might not be too bad either. We see partially the obvious with “Brexit places “an extra burden” on the regulator’s resources“, which was always a given, yet not mentioning it is also folly. I particularly liked “And financial centres across the EU — including Frankfurt, Paris, Dublin, and Luxembourg — are battling to attract financial services work moving out of London as a result of Brexit as a result of expected legal changes that will make operating in the EU out of London tricky“. I like it because it is part of some sales cycle. They are preparing to move in on opportunity, which in the follow up gives rise to the emotional Irish article mentioned earlier. In this Ireland slices and cuts with both sides of the knife they wield. All valid and business like, yet it puts the emotional Irish outrage a little over the top, does it not? In the end, we do not know if it will even be an option, because there are litigation settings that the European Community ignored and never set in procedures and policies. Is that not equally dim, folly and stupid?

Consider the given, you as a person, when you go to the bank, when you go to the realtor or the gym around the corner. How often have you seen in the ‘contract‘ you signed on the costs and responsibility you faced when you stopped being a member. They all have clauses you had to sign, equally so for your mobile, which tends to be the most expensive part to leave. Yet the high 6 figure income legal minds of the EU in Brussels, none of them had anything in play. All like some jurisprudential catholic marriage of eternity, all with the additional option to screw small boys and girls (read: individual tax payers), how interesting that none had the escape policies in place. We saw it as early as Greece and the EU and the media just emotionally babbled to us all. Now that Brexit is becoming a reality, now it is suddenly all mayhem and chaos wherever you try to get any news.

So we have 4 out of 10, with one exceptional part. That was me googling today. So as we are all drowned in emotion, we need to see two additional parts. Both ‘green’ articles with the subtitle ‘New study shows a the number of people available for new jobs is dwindling, leading to a push in pay for those already in work‘ we see two sides, one that employment is up and pay rise might not feel great (unless you receive it), yet that too constitutes the dangers of rising costs. I advocated even before the referendum that the UK should look at their Commonwealth brothers and sisters. It would have been easy for two years to have an open Commonwealth VISA, one that allows any Commonwealth citizen up to a year into the UK, with optional setting to enhance it, so whilst with that one employer you have a year, that can be extended to 2 years and then to 4 years after which you could automatically become a permanent resident and after that if desired citizen. As employment is essential, you have a taxpayer, not a drain. For job hoppers, there could be the option of residency if they have been with at least 3 employers for at least 2 years, so in the end they get the option after 9 years. The simplest solution and both the political and civil services just drained on some merit that was not even valid in the most virtual of situations. In this the entire NHS mess would never have been any valid emotional media on those so called 86,000 open vacancies. A solution thought of 4 years ago by me. Yet the MP’s are all about some outdated policy whilst trying to push the need for the one market EU link to not be cut, whilst even in those days enough evidence had been submitted that large corporations are the only actual winners in that one market facade. In addition the green articles have mentions like: “Last year’s Brexit vote has made it more difficult for employers to fill jobs with some EU nationals leaving the UK“, the fact might be true, but most of those people were scared away by exploitative media whilst that media knew that there was no given answers at that time? Several issues on immigration and the media, clearly given by .GOV.UK were ignored as setting the minds of the people at peace was not a given option for the exploitative media. So when we see the quotes from Kevin Green, chief executive of REC. We could consider that equally see that with “We can’t ignore the importance of our relationship with the EU to employers“, which gives us that he makes no mention of any Commonwealth options either. If you truly have problems finding people, you look to other places too. When the pond is not giving fish, you can try and try again, or look around to see where the next nearest pond is, or is that version of simplicity just too muddy for the chief executive of the REC?

In equal measure I question the part of “a study by Deloitte suggested 38 per cent of lower-skilled EU nationals are considering relocating away from UK businesses“, I question it as I wonder on the failing of the questionnaire as well as the data and the weights applied, the foundations of the weights and how the data was interpreted. For those doubting that they did anything wrong, questionable or set to the intent of not being clearly informative. Evidence can be found with ‘How to Lie with Statistics‘ by Darrell Huff. Also consider the first political application of results: ‘If the data does not match the needs, simply alter the question‘. So there are several considerations and solutions for the politicians actually trying to work a solution and not whatever personal angle they need to work by exposing emotional sides that were never part of anything. In the second there was the mention of the EU courts. So when we see “SENIOR TORY MP Dominic Grieve said the European Court of Justice (ECJ) will remain a “dominant presence” in UK courts after Brexit despite pledges to break free from its influence made by David Davis“, there is a truth in that. As Brexit is completed, there will remains legal links, yet, is that a bad part? There will be shifts, yet before the EU was ratified, there were legal parts that were already in agreement on both sides. Yet I question to some extent “The European Court of Justice is, in fact, going to continue to be a really dominant presence in our lives even though we no longer have any ability to appear in it“, if we are not an party of appearance, we have no connection to it. The UK will still be ruled by UK Common Law, there can be no question on that. We still have certain allegiances and also legal responsibilities as well as rights. So I question part of this article.

And the truth is seen with “What’s happened is when we leave the EU, the Government decided existing EU law would be incorporated into our own law. The legislation to be laid out in the autumn will lay out guidelines as to how this will operate“, which is part of the debate as it is not a given, or in finality. In addition, as Germany, the Netherlands and France have Civil Law, whilst the UK has Common Law, there will be an issue making things fit. In addition there is “He said it is “unclear” whether judges will be able to apply UK principles when interpreting legislation derived from European Union regulation“, so there is non-clarity, which makes this almost more an Orange than a Green article. Still, valid non emotional questions are asked, which was the foundation I employed towards the use of colours. The issues are actually stated in the Lisbon treaty. Yet, when we see certain parts, we see Article 249c, which gives us at [1] ‘Member States shall adopt all measures of national law necessary to implement legally binding Union acts‘, so this is to binding union acts, and as the UK would no longer be part of the union, it falls away. Yet the Lisbon treaty also gives Article 188J and at [2] we see ‘Humanitarian aid operations shall be conducted in compliance with the principles of international law and with the principles of impartiality, neutrality and non-discrimination‘, which is what UK law was already compliant with, so there are a few legal issues where it is specifically to the adherence of national law, yet which are the issue when the UK is no longer an EU member? The article does not bring that to light, does it?

We see loads of emotional sides, yet lacking the clarity to the degree that it should have had. In all this, the former political editor of the Daily mail is the person who wants to throw someone into jail? so when we revisit the Daily Mail with ‘Google, the terrorists friend‘, I wonder who should be in jail, and as for ‘a terror manual on how to use a car for mass murder‘, I wonder if they looked at the fact that every year 85,000 people in the UK are convicted of drink driving offences. With the toll of 940 killed and 3690 seriously wounded, whilst the UK has a ‘mere’ 90 killed by terrorists, so were terrorists the actual issue, or is exploitation of the terrorist word just better for circulation? I think that there isn’t any person who after being a Daily Mail employee has any business slinging mud after they were the facilitating bucket of mud themselves. That is merely my view on his matter and the fact that the bulk of these pro EU are still crying on the presented setting of £350 million, if that was the only issue, Brexit would NEVER ever have won, the EU has massive issues and it is time for people to stop burying their heads in the sand. I have exposed in several blogs the fact that several issues have never been dealt with whilst the people have been wealthily refunded for decades. The EU gravy train is one that no government can afford and those who enjoy the ride don’t want it to change. The media has equally been too silent on that matter for too long too.

In the end, the people want to return to some quality of life, a path the EU has not offered, has not achieved and will be unlikely to give (read: hand out) any day soon. In equal measure consider the writings of Neville Henderson, British Ambassador in Germany in 1938, so when he wrote “I suppose the chances of Hitler coming out at Nuremberg with what will amount to peace or what will amount to war (thunder there is sure to be) are about 50-50. I opt for the former. If I am right I do wish it might be possible to get at any rate the Times, Camrose, Beaverbrook Press etc. to write up Hitler as an apostle of Peace.“, can anyone remember how Hitler, the apostle of peace solved matters? In addition he wrote “We make a great mistake when our Press persists in abusing him. Let it abuse his evil advisers but give him a chance of being a good boy“, so how good was this ‘good boy‘, so how facilitating was the Press?

Daily Mail 1938Perhaps some remember the Daily Mail in 1938, as they warned the UK of aliens entering through the back door. With “The way stateless Jews from Germany are pouring in from every port is becoming an outrage” the Daily Mail decided to give verdict, yet in the end those who took that backdoor road were pretty much the only Jews left alive after Hitler’s European Tour 1939-1945. So as we see the driving need of revenue through circulation of emotion, we have to wonder what else we should former Daily Mail people stop from doing. We are being attacked on emotional levels from media that should have known better for decades.

So the plain truth is that the UK will get out of the valley of bad quality of life, they will in addition grow faster when they left the EU and I believe that the EU will have to deal with multiple trillions of Euros in junk bonds, it will slow the EU economy down for a much longer time. It will not make it an easy push for the UK, that was never going to be the case, yet in the end, I feel certain that the £ will be the strongest of currencies once more. It is when are showing to win, how many papers will become the ‘turncoats’ shielding certain MP’s from the political emotional games they played together by relying on misinformation? Or will they show us how they used the writings of Darrell Huff to get their personal view across?

 

I personally hope that we get to ask them those questions sooner rather than later!

 

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Politics

How to pay for it?

Yesterday’s news is not new. We have all heard the options, the opposition and the recrimination. Yet the article (at https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jul/23/uk-arms-sales-to-saudis-continued-after-airstrike-on-yemen-funeral) gives out more to ask of those who are on the moral ethical high ground and as such we need to make considerations, from within ourselves and towards others choosing for us.

You see, I am not stating that they are wrong, or that there isn’t an issue. We need to ask ourselves whether we should take blame of responsibility of the actions of other governments. So consider the £283m. When we consider the 2017 spring budget, that one sale takes care of the Education and health bill for spring 2017 and potentially leaves us with enough to pay the Debt interest for that quarter. So, what will these campaigners do when they are opted for one (the deal) or the other which would be no health or education money? I always love campaigners who in a downed economy make demands and have no clue or no solution on how to pay for it all. It is a really lovely group of non-deciders in most of the events.

What would I do?

I would happily go to Riyadh with my new BAE business card and sell them whatever systems they need to keep their nation safe. You see, it is the right of any nation to defend their nation. The application of the weapons purchased is up to them. Guns do not kill people, people kill people, it is basic and as I see it the correct dimensionality of a situation.

So when I read “the UK trade secretary, Liam Fox, delayed signing a set of export licences and his officials prepared for sales to Saudi Arabia to be suspended. However, documents obtained by the Guardian revealed that the foreign secretary, Boris Johnson, advised him that the sales should continue, as he judged there was no clear risk that British weapons would be used for serious breaches of international humanitarian law“, like Boris Johnson, I see no real issue. The fact that he added: ‘serious breaches of international humanitarian law‘ as a condition was politically fair enough and perhaps a definite essential condition. It seems a little cowardly, but at what point would there be a serious consideration there? Even Iran might not fall into that category, leaving us with only North Korea, Al-Qaeda and ISIS as actual risk factors and we do not deal with these three anyway.

When someone states that I am wrong and there is a clear risk with Saudi Arabia transgressing there, my question would be: ‘Show me that evidence‘. After which I get a lot of speculative mumbo jumbo and no evidence at all. In this day and age we need to consider the choices to select which is fair enough, yet to give rise to campaigners on speculative events whilst they are willing to give silence in the case of Javier Martin-Artajo, Julien Grout and Bruno Iksil, willing to shrug the shoulders and walk away without anger or indignation. Such persons are all about feigned morality because there was no blood. So how many people lost their quality of life for a long time whilst JP Morgan Chase & Co lost £4.7 billion? You think that this was merely printed money, people lost all levels of hard worked gains, pensions, savings and other losses were endured. So as we read in that case “the Department of Justice said it “no longer believes that it can rely on the testimony” of Bruno Iksil, the trader dubbed the London Whale, based on recent statements and writings he made that hurt the case” (source: the Guardian), I feel like this was an orchestrated event. First get the accusations out, make a final thrust for your own acquittal and then write a little more making it all unreliable? Consider not what he lost (stated at 80%), but that he got to keep 20% of some $6m a year (paid more than one year), in addition, whatever the DoJ agreed to in 2013, which might be his house and a few other things. So he got to keep an amount that is exceedingly more than whatever I have made or will make for my entire life, a mere 2 years of his. So as we see about extradition issues, we now see that all three walk away.

This relates to the arms deal as the consequences of that part are merely speculative and it pays for a chunk of the government budget, so I will take a job there willingly any day of the week, presenting the technological marvels of the F-35 JSF missile which can be set to the bulk of the Saudi Arabian fighters. I will gladly take the reduced 1% commission and sell 5,000-10,000 missiles, after which I fly to Egypt and sell a few more. If that gets education and health funded in the UK for the entire year, so much the better! I will sleep like a baby knowing that education and health care are safe and set in stone to be funded. My presentations would be the best stellar presentations of them all. So F.U. (sorry for this instance of Post Enhousiastic Sales Drama) to both Raytheon and Northrop Grumman!

As we can imagine at times we need to take heed (read: listen to) campaigners, when the going was good (20 years ago) and we had several options to take a high moral stance, yet at present with a collapsing NHS, with politicians showing less and less backbone against large corporations on taxation issues, the United Kingdom has a responsibility towards its citizens, not just to keep them safe, but to offer some level of any future. Those campaigners seem to think that money grows on trees and have no idea on how to get things funded; in the UK the UK Labour party is perhaps the most striking evidence of all. As Jeremy Corbyn is now in denial on student debt issues, as he was intentionally vague during the election race. Of course apart from not winning (thank god for that), the realisation that he has no options, no methods and no way to get any level of budget done without raising the current debt by at least 50% and initially projected at 80%, the question becomes, how it would have ever been paid for as people like this, and campaigners against certain paths (read: perhaps for the right ideological reasons) have no way to deal with the national issues. Leaving people with much harsher debts, increased taxation and less social security as it can no longer be paid for.

I am not against ideology, I do not believe that dedicated pacifism is a cowardly stance; it is often quite a brave stance. Yet, it is equally often not a realistic one. We can all go to Hacksaw Ridge and be amazed of the events Andrew Garfield’s character went through, showing us some of what the real Desmond Doss went through, and we can admire his stance and his courage. Yet in the end, without the thousands armed forces in the 77th Infantry division, the battle would have been lost. It does not diminish the actions of this one highly decorated person, I am merely stating that the 77th held its ground and was victorious in the end, yet we should never forget that it is still regarded as the bloodiest battle in the history of WW2, with 50,000 allied lives lost and well over 100,000 Japanese casualties.

We make choices in war and in peace. I believe that every sovereign nation has its rights for defence, we cannot vouch for the articles of war in offense and that is not our responsibility. It is not for the salesperson of equipment to say and even the campaigner for peace needs to realise that there is a stance to take, even if it is a valid choice to oppose offensive actions, we must realise that any self-governing nation can deal with its enemies in the way they seem fit, when it becomes too unacceptable we need to accept that places like the United Nations will take the appropriate actions.

So how is this different?

It should not be, but it is. Ask yourself how you would act. We can always act holier than thou when we can afford it, yet when we are confronted with being hungry or to some degree making a questionable deal that is not criminal, and it is perfectly legal, but we cannot foresee the consequence. Is it still wrong to do it? Consider that we cannot predict the future and this is not merely a legal ‘more likely than not‘. It is about legally acting correct and morally acting optionally questionable, because that is where the stance is. Should we interfere with the right of Saudi Arabia to defend itself and act, or become judging and act towards denying them that right? This is the view I think that the campaigners are not taking correctly, too hastily and in judgement of ‘some’ moral principle. Now, I am not stating that they cannot do that, it is their right and their expression of free will, but in all this, they must also than accept the setting that they will have to voice: ‘We have decided to stop all NHS healthcare and education for the upcoming Autumn 2017, as we stopped the revenue that would have guaranteed it‘, that must then be in equal measure their acceptance in this. I wonder how the doctors, nurses and teachers feel at that point.

In this we now see another part grow. Even as we agree to some extent with the quote of “The terrible funeral bombing should have been a time for reflection and for the UK to reconsider its uncritical political and military support for Saudi Arabia“, we accept that ideologically Andrew Smith, spokesman for Campaign Against Arms Trade has a right and perhaps even a valid point, yet does he?

When we see “‘Incorrect information’ meant hall in Sana’a was mistaken for military target, leading to 140 deaths, says US-backed mission” (source: the Guardian) we need to know a lot more, the actual Intel, the raw data and the decision tree. When we also see “The air operation centre in Yemen, it added, directed a “close air support mission” to target the site without approval from the coalition’s command“, we can argue and question a few issue, yet in all, who authorised the action? How was the coalition command set up? If there was an approval at any level it takes the pilot out of the equation (read: likely he was never a consideration in the first place), so even as we see questions on the actions, even when we read “Dozens of citizens fell as martyrs or were wounded in this attack by planes of the Saudi-American aggression“, whilst the actions of the Houthi rebels are left in silence by too many, including the indiscriminate shelling of places. Any war is a place where it took two to tango, which does not absolve any side of considerations, yet in all I see often a complete lack of complete information, or better stated more precise and more complete information to the extent that was possible. Even now as Yemen is using ballistic missiles attacking a Saudi Oil refinery, as Mines are killing Saudi Soldiers, we see that Yemen remains active, shooting missiles close to 600 miles into Saudi Arabia, so as such, I think that the time of recriminations are over, they have been over for some time. Even now, merely 5 hours ago, we see that Nayef al-Qaysi, governor of the central province of al-Bayda was removed from office because of his ties with Al-Qaeda. Now, the source here is the Miami Herald, and others are voicing pretty much the same article. I cannot state one or the other, yet when we see these events unfold, giving rise to one or the other without proper visible intelligence is not a given. Yet in all this, when we take the original title and make this: ‘UK approved £283m of arms sales to Saudis to fight Al-Qaeda‘ (read: personal merging of different timed facts), at that point how many campaigners would we hear? Can we agree that if Nayef al-Qaysi has ties to Al-Qaeda, they would have been there for some time?

A piece of intelligence that I and perhaps many others would not have had last October, so should I not have sold these weapons to Saudi Arabia? I do not think that I had any valid opposition to not sell and whenever we campaign (even for the best and most valid of reasons) is always a loaded gun and that loaded gun is always aimed at the victims of these actions. In my presented case it would have been the people in need of NHS treatments and students. Any person proclaiming that they have the whole picture is usually lying to you, apart from the General of the Saudi armed forces there would be almost no other person in possessions of all the facts and even then we can state with a certain level of certainty that this person did not have ALL the facts. This is what makes the opposition to any debatable act a dangerous path. We can at best hope for acting in a non-illegal manner and that is exactly what happened in this case. It was a legal transaction, one that was essential for the coffers of the United Kingdom.

We need to learn how to compartmentalise. It is in our best interest to do what is correct and to do what our bosses want of us. When we try to grow beyond that cubicle we tend to speculate on what is best and even if we agree that thinking things through is never a bad thing, unless it is our responsibility we have to act according to our better angels, which means no in opposition of law. Is it not interesting that when that happens, more often than not these actions were greed based and those transgressors should be prosecuted by law, which in the case of hedge funds traders is almost 0%, so if we want ideology, it should be on the evolution of legislation to stop economic exploitation. Yet at that point, how many campaigners remain? I reckon that list slims down a lot, because economic transgressions are not sexy enough, or it is like a happy lottery ticket that nearly everyone wants and in case of Bruno Iksil when it amounts to 20% of many millions, I would love to get that lottery ticket as well, I saw a nice place in Cognac, where I would happily retire to. A mere €850K, which would leave me well over €100K a year to live off for the rest of my life, whilst the house (read: villa) had been paid for. I admit it is a lifestyle I would embrace if it was limited to one questionable, non-illegal act. It will not make me a criminal, merely a person not hiding behind some hypocrite high moral code of conduct.

Until campaigners get in the stage of life on how to pay for their daily meal and proceed on that moral high ground, that is the first step in filtering the actual ideologists from the hypocrites, an essential first step, yet in the end, they too need to accept that some sides of life need to get paid for and they cannot vote to make thousands abstain from essential needs. It is not fair and not pretty but that is the place that deep debts have pushed us all into, the mere acceptance of our to the smallest degree of changed options in upholding any quality of life.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Military, Politics

Sex Driven Developers

There are always ways to find weaknesses in government; there is a decent chance that we find them on a daily basis. Yet, how must we react when the foundation of those making the decisions are now in a runt of enabling? What happens when the government first decides on cyber rules for the safety of all whilst opening a bordello around the corner so that those in dire need of affordable housing are getting screwed over?

This is what is on the goose feather of Julia Kollewe as she dipped it into the ink jar and gave us ‘Battersea Power Station developer slashes number of affordable homes‘ (at https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/21/battersea-power-station-affordable-homes-almost-halved-by-developer). She is trying to wake up pretty much everyone with this and it should wake us all up. You see, the next decade is about the dire need of affordable housing, London is in danger of alienating the very population that is the means for its survival. You see, in my mind, greed is not a ‘technical issue‘. Greed merely is and never goes away. A technical issue is when you get the cement batter wrong in one shipment, a technical issue is when you are looking at a square and you calculated for 5 corners. When you have a £9 billion project and you have to redesign 40%, you are in my humble opinion screwing people over for your need of greed and profit whilst ‘putain‘ the 250 people now left outside in the cold (pardon my French). So as we see that someone clever from these Malaysian investors, are now trying to maximise profit by slashing the affordable housing part as we read: “The affordable home proposals amounted to 15% of the total 4,239 homes planned, which included luxury pads ranging from £800,000 for a studio atop the former power station to £4m for a four-bedroom flat (the three penthouses have yet to be priced).” there is no other option but to fight back. In this there are two options left to the government. One is to get the list of investors and they are to be banned from any other real estate investment in the UK for 5 years. The second option would be that if the apartments are uninhabited for over 40% of the time, there must be a large service surcharge to the building services. Once that these investors have to report these surcharges in the upcoming sales bill, they might have to let slip some of their expected profits. In all this, the ‘compensation‘ of mentioned “build the 386 affordable homes three years earlier than previously envisaged, which means residents will receive their keys in 2020. They will be located in apartment blocks near the power station“, is only a small band aid, because it is not just about time, it is about space and location, the space of 250 apartments is now gone! We sometimes state that no man is an island, but the UK kind of is, so that means that once the space is gone, it is definitively gone. We also get the quote “an assessment of the profits the developer expects to make. Independent adviser BNP Paribas advised the council that it is “very unlikely” that the 250 homes will materialise“. So when we see this ‘independent’ party. Have they been on this project from the very beginning? You see, if that is true than we see a feigned level of incompetence. From my point of view, BNP Paribas is not just the largest bank in France; it is one of the largest banks in the world, so when they make an £9B ‘oopsie’, something else is going on. From my speculated view is that they had made for whatever plan they could offer so that they could get the project, whilst down the track they adjusted the view to get the results their investors needed and submitted the new plans so that they end up getting what they wanted in the first place. I cannot tell how deep BNP Paribas is into this as ‘Independent adviser‘ implies that they could have been called in down the track, not initially. In support of this view the article also gives us: “Keith Garner, a local architect who has campaigned against the Battersea project for years, said: “Underlying it, the financial model is all wrong. A developer-led project to conserve, repair and bring back in to use a famous London landmark is turning in to a predictable disaster“. This now gives us two parts. The first is that this is not just coming to view and even as the lord Mayor Sadiq Khan is only now coming into view, his administration as well as the previous one, will now need to show clearly that due diligence was maintained throughout the project including the view and calculations before approval was given. This puts Boris Johnson equally on the hot chair as his team comes under scrutiny. If we are to maintain the push for affordable housing, we cannot accept screw ups of this magnitude. Because once the cashable buildings are gone, it is over and no other option remains. It is the curse of sitting on an island. Keith Garner has been vocal in the past, going back even before January 2015, yet from this point onwards we see Keybridge House in Vauxhall where only 4.5% became affordable (19 out of 419), it seems to me that when we tally that part the failure is a lot larger than most realise. Even then there was a list for the PowerStation with a setting of ‘3,444 new homes at the power station 560, or 16%, will be affordable‘, so the list got slashed before and it got slashed again. Actually, the numbers changed as 3,444 became 4239, so there has been more ‘revamping’ it seems that a project this much in flux implies that certain elements were either never set or set in a questionable way. Now, we get that things change, there are always details that need ‘alteration‘ yet when you ‘suddenly‘ add 795 apartments (which under normal conditions seem to be 2-4 additional towers, we should agree that ‘questionable‘ is very much the better word to use (without getting to rude and rely on the ‘putain’ word).

Another issue is seen in “Officers appreciate the level of stresses a scheme of this size and complexity has and that the main priorities of the scheme have been the conservation and redevelopment of the listed power station building, the delivery of the Northern Line extension and new underground station and the jobs to be created as part of the new town centre“, you see, as investors are always happy to sue the pants of any official, the mention of ‘delivery of the Northern Line extension and new underground station‘ is not a problem to the Malaysian investors, so if the UK government had impeded the development of an agreed project, the government get the invoice. So there is now the implied issue that there was a mere trade off and 250 affordable homes were scrapped. Is that not a view you would envision? In addition ‘jobs to be created as part of the new town centre‘ sounds nice, but how is that part of the powerhouse building project? So as this all comes to heads in “A report by the Wandsworth council planning officer recommends that the proposals be approved, ahead of a meeting of the planning committee on Thursday evening“, there is the speculated issue that the Wandsworth council made a right mess of things and they are trying to appease the situation so that they keep their jobs and possibly avoid the wrath of parliament, there was just the need to scrap housing for 250 people who desperately needed them.

So, feel free to object and oppose my way of thinking, but that is how I see it. I understand that the UK needs economy, it needs houses and it needs jobs, but when a limited resource is wasted to this degree we need to ask questions loudly and there needs to be the revision of policies to make certain that affordable housing remains at the top of the list, and remains the top priority of the list of achievements. Yet in the last 2-3 years, there is additional evidence growing that what was a desperate need is ignored by those, because it does not really impact them.

Yet the 2015 article also gives some opposition. We see this in “Tony Travers, director of the Greater London group at the London School of Economics, says: “In fairness, the developer is being required to pay for a lot of other things. The land has to be used very intensely to produce enough yield to pay for the things that the government used to pay for.”“. OK, this is fair enough. My response would be: ‘I agree, but that is the assessment of an investment opportunity. The numbers are done and in the end it is either feasible or it is not!‘ So the investor could have walked away from it. If the government had found the £9B, it has the option to do it themselves, with a very different balance, and perhaps with only one penthouse, the other 2 could have become 3 3-bedrooms apartment each. In addition, as it is now less about profit, there could have been 900 affordable houses instead of the 636 initially envisioned. As I read the articles over time and the sources given, it seems to me that orchestration might have been at the centre of things from the beginning. That feeling is gotten from ‘The land has to be used very intensely to produce enough yield to pay for the things that the government used to pay for‘, you see, like some naval projects, where voting for adjustments is often much better than being the messenger on a failed project, because those investors would sue, and the eagerness of the Wandsworth council implies to some degree that there would be a case and a court settlement of £9B might not be the best way to go forward. And as we see in the past “Many flats were sold off-plan and, still unbuilt, are back on the market at higher prices. Just before Christmas one unbuilt studio flat in the power station, which had sold for close to £1m, was back on the market for £1.4m. Last week, estate agent Chestertons was reported to have other unbuilt flats on the market for £865,000 – £150,000 more than their original asking price” implies that investors are getting rich fast, so the entire drop of 250 affordable apartments is becoming more and more of a debatable issue.

Yet the final issue not seen in the latter article is most damning on both the houses of Sadiq Khan and Boris Johnson. The quote “the lack of a master plan for the area” is damning because it implies that the area could lose its identity, and I am willing to buy either a coffee with a cream cheese bagel with Salmon if they can clearly oppose the drop of value for the loss of identity validity. Those who truly move to London want to be in an area. They want to be part of Islington, Hammersmith or Chelsea. Some will prefer Southwark because of Hay’s galleria, yet in reality they might just do it because the hookers give much better value in that borough. Whatever reason we hear the identity of the place matters. And this requires a clear master plan. to some degree when it is in the hands of foreign investors, things go into flux, yet a clear master plan is essential the prevent London of becoming an anonymous place of chaos.

In this we remain at minus 250 apartments. You see, no matter how grand it all looks, the immediate need for infrastructure is simple. When the people have to travel too far to work, the job will no longer be a feasible solution. Even as some are pointing to an extension of the Northern Line, the simple truth is that it is an additional 15 minutes, meaning that some people will travel 90 minutes each way to get to (or from) a place where they can afford to live, on top of that travel costs are rising too. So the new place ends up being a ghost town without infrastructure. How is that an interesting investment when some could go in and out of this ghost town to burglar it into heaven as they get to do that unopposed? How many paintings and electronics need to be removed before the investors seek another place to go to?

All elements that seem to have been missed, all part of a master plan not in place and all linked to investment and economic plans that might have been dubious from the beginning. As I personally see it, a lack of long term oversight, checks and balances all cast aside for the quick profit and the marketable view of mentioning, to merely look good. And now Lord Mayor Sadiq Khan has the mess on his plate and he gets to see what might be salvaged, because when I see ‘A report by the Wandsworth council planning officer recommends that the proposals be approved‘, I wonder what has not hit the light of day yet and what else has to be sacrificed (or additional costs received) in the next upcoming year. Would you not wonder (read: worry) about that very same thing?

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Politics

From Qatar to the United Kingdom

The last few days have been all about the issues of elections and the gratifications some see with the Labour party. I am impressed on just how gullible people can be. It’s like the need for common sense has gone straight out of the window. The last time the Labour party pushed the UK into deep debt, now because of Austerity the people think that the Labour party will change this. So what do you think will happen when another trillion in debt is added? Its like politicians have gone crazy. Spending without accountability. When will it end? And if you think that the UK is so much better than Greece, than it is important for you to wake up fast, because the debt of the UK is well over 700% of Greece. For now, the UK is above the curve because of manufacturing, tourism, service related profits, but when that curve falls down it goes south in a hurry. Where will you be then? Most will think that it is for someone else to fix, but those short sighted people will be around when the cost of living is up by 20% whilst your income has a mere 3% correction. that is the reality of what is to come. On the other side, Theresa May has mace mistakes, she bungled the balls a few times and that is a flaw that did cost her a majority. Yet, the end is not yet in sight. If the Conservatives can set a correct dialogue with the Lib Dems, then Tim Farron will have 4 years to show he is a leader, to show that the Lib Dems matter. In 4 years whilst we get a clueless Jeremy Corbyn stating how he promises thousands of jobs whilst the treasury has no way to pay for it. Until the tax system will get a true overhaul and take care of the 0.1% tax bracket for the large corporations, there is no chance that anything will be fixed. It is a mere reality all those in the UK face. And Scotland, well they went foolish on a second referendum and 35% of Scotland decided to find another party. Yet there is also the other visibility, the game that should have never been played against the foolish move. Yes, the majority is gone, but 13 seats against the non stop media heist of the truth and playing whatever story would erupt in the most readers and emotions. That game could have given a much larger cost to the Tories by the end of the year. That is merely my view, I have no way of proving my view, which in equal measure means that I could be wrong.

So what is left? Time will tell, but the next events of the Brexit is about to be due. As we see places like the NY Times give us “It enhanced the possibility that a chastened government led by Mrs. May would now strike a less confrontational approach with Europe while seeking a way to keep Britain within the bloc’s large single marketplace“, we have to wonder who is facilitating who? With the additional quote “The European authorities have consistently emphasized that Britain’s continued inclusion in the single market requires that it abide by the bloc’s rules — not least, a provision that people be allowed to move freely within its confines“, this is part of the problem, because it is showing to be unrealistic and the other players, none of them want certain people. They are so happy that all those travellers believe that the UK is the golden dream. When those people end up somewhere else, we are confronted with over half a dozen members who see their own infrastructure collapse. There is Austria with new anti-migrant measures, with ‘protective zones‘ and a whole lot of other issues. The less said about Greece the better, what is a given is that they are under such stress that their reactions make sense, yet most of those illegals don’t even want to be in Greece, they are just passing through. The Albanians being one of the larger illegal immigrant groups is giving the impression that Albania is empty. Bulgaria is setting up barbed wired fences. Those people all howling for free movement are all trying to get rid of the problem. The open borders have failed, only for large corporations needing zero hour workers, they prosper. And those in ‘charge’ in the European Union play their game, their defiance in support of the gravy train. And then we see a new quote, one that gives rise to certain media playing the game they are. “In short, the election has complicated the assumption that Britain is headed irretrievably toward the exits, producing a moment in which seemingly everything may be up for reconsideration“, this was the game all along. those behind the screens, those deciding on the flow of trillions, they need their 34% profit annually, without the UK where it is now, that is no longer an option and the voice of Italy is still not a given at present. So when you read: “Those who have favoured Britain remaining within Europe, or at least softening the terms of its exit, now have “an expectation, or at least a hope, that cooler heads will prevail,” said Jeremy Cook, chief economist at World First, a company based in London that manages foreign exchange transactions.” Is it cooler heads, or greedy heads? There is cause for consideration that a hard Brexit was never a good idea, but as the EU cannot muzzle or chastise Mario Draghi, the EU is becoming too dangerous a place to remain in. It gives additional cause for concern as the deep web has a speaker who has been advocating the need for targeted killing of certain finance officials. I am not sure that this is a good idea, but prosecuting politicians who cannot maintain a neutral budget is not a bad first step. the problem is that Strasbourg is more about protecting terrorists and their rights than it is to protect victims of exploitation, because extremists hiding behind laws is often easier than doing the right thing for the victims they create.

The dark web has a good thing, it lets me see some elements completely unfiltered, yet you get it all, all the hypes, the rages, the ragers and the emotions, you need to learn to filter the values. Which is at times a lot harder than you think. So when you dig beyond grams and the easy access to drugs and weapons, you could find a few places that offer an option to those willing to be tools for a little while. the payoff is extremely large, yet that also beckons what the facilitators get. You see, getting a 7 figure number buys silence, yet in that view, what will the payer get, what is worth facilitating a 7 figure reward for? Some of these offers are getting louder and more frequent. This implies (highly speculative) that there is a hole in the net and certain entrepreneurial players are going whilst the going is good. Several addresses offered even more since the elections, implying that as there is a hung UK government the going is better. I am speculating that there is a finance hole that can be exploited for now, it is speculation, but it is all I have for now. These people are so paranoid that it makes Alexander Bortnikov a mere naive and trusting teenager, an interesting version of the director of the FSB, don’t you think?

We need large changes and throwing money at it will not yield the people anything, merely deeper debt. It is for that reason why I refuse to trust Jeremy Corbyn. Yet these issues are on one side, the other side is equally an issue and equally a problem, also for the UK. Qatar is now in a different place. It started yesterday with ”There is no trust’: Gulf states give up hope on Qatar’  (at https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jun/09/qatar-united-arab-emirates-diplomacy). This is not that unexpected, but that we see actions by UAE, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Egypt gives rise to more extreme measures. Qatar is now surrounded by people who have had enough of them. As we realise that the quote “Omar Saif Ghobas, the United Arab Emirates’ ambassador to Russia, one of the most eloquent exponents of UAE thinking, insisted the new anti-Qatar alliance was not planning a military invasion or externally enforced regime change. Instead, he said Qatar had a history of internal regime change, implying the UAE would welcome the removal of the emir” with in addition “It is Turkey that is militarising the position“, we now see a first move where Turkey has become a much stronger problem for Europe. And some of the EU players were so adamant in getting Turkey added, even as there were several cases clearly shown that Turkey should not have been allowed into the EU or NATO. So where are those advocating to add Turkey now? They should be placed into the limelight and be held publicly to account. The two key supporters were Poland and the UK. So here we see the issue with Boris Johnson. How could he have been so stupid to get on that unreliable horse? As we see Turkey go off base more and more, the higher the need for Boris Johnson to seek another job and get a haircut. Is that a fair assessment?

Qatar has been a problem for a while now and when you see 4 nations who at present prefer to do business with Israel instead of Qatar, we can honestly state that there is an escalating issue in the region and Turkey is making it worse. Now, wee look at the news we got 6 hours after the initial news (at https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jun/09/qatar-crisis-grows-as-arab-nations-draw-up-terror-sanctions-list), where we now see: ‘Qatar crisis grows as Arab nations draw up terror sanctions list‘, it starts with “Saudi Arabia and its Gulf allies have sanctioned a dozen organisations and 59 people it accuses of links to Islamist militancy – a number of them Qataris or with links to Qatar – escalating the diplomatic crisis in the region“, which is a mere way to appease the neutrality of our palette. You see, the news is not just on “increased military cooperation with Qatar, including the potential deployment of Turkish troops“, I think that the ‘support’ has been going on a little longer than we think. It is my speculative believe that someone in Qatar has been facilitating Kurd intelligence to Turkey in some way. For a price Turkey got information and this has been a facilitating event. I cannot prove in any way the idea that the counts that Turkey offers is highly overstated and in fact, their attacks are not as successful. It is the way that we see some of these events reported, that is why I questions some of the numbers. Here I could easily be wrong, so don’t take my word on that.
The reason to mention it is because Turkey is following another pattern, Qatar is so out of the way, it makes no sense to get on the wrong side of Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Egypt, at present I cannot state whether the Turkish military are going insane or that there is another play in action. What is a given is that this will escalate further and it will impact Europe as well! To what degree remains an unknown for now.

So, as we go into a theatre mode, let’s go with ‘Pigs in Space’, we have to narrate towards the next episode with: ‘Tune in next week when we see Boris Johnson getting a haircut, and as the man behind health states, would you like to be in charge, does he have the £350m a week entrance fee? And when the head nurse needs some elevation, will The Lord Newby, also known as Baron Newby et a Saudi Nurse? That and more is answered next week in Piiiiiiiiigs in Spaaaace’ Yes, that was mildly entertaining, but it gives reference to a part many might have missed in the Guardian last week. The article ‘The Qatar spat exposes Britain’s game of thrones in the Gulf’ (at https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jun/05/qatar-spat-exposes-britains-game-of-thrones-gulf-paul-mason). It has more information than you bargained for. We can all hide behind “Britain cannot solve the diplomatic crisis in the Gulf. But it can stop making it worse”. You see, it all sounds good and gravy, but over the decades’ nations made alliances, they made choices and some those are long term. In addition, is the UK better off staying out of it, or try to get a result that fits the needs of the United Kingdom? That is the question is it not? We either align or we let others dictate future global events. Saudi Arabia is a global player, Qatar is not. Some choices are hard and in this Labour is very valid in making a different choice, that cannot be held against them, what can be held against them is them thinking that there will not be long term consequences. That is just utter stupidity on a podium. That is the play, that is the game, so as we align with some and align wrongly with some, we cannot just move towards the others stating, lets play a game. We either commit or state openly that Turkey is a clear and present danger to Europe and the European way of life and let the chips fall where they may. I wonder how quickly some politicians (read Jeremy Corby) spin that in any direction away from them at the drop of a hat. So is one view hypocrite, the other view, or are we considering that electing hypocrites into office comes at a price we all have to pay for?

Just sit down and consider that one. That is after you contemplate the meaning of Mario Draghi’s ‘policy normalisation’ and what it is about to cost you. So have a lovely weekend and enjoy a nice slice of cake on Monday!

Long live the Queen!

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Media, Military, Politics

How to get yourself killed

On the edge of the elections, we see new developments in a few areas. The issue is not the people trying to keep others safe; it is now to some extent the law that is aiding people getting killed. Here we see the first of a few issues, that first one being the Human Rights Act 1998. Now, let’s be clear! I am not against the HRA. The issue is that it is now protecting terrorists in completing their goals, which was not what it was intended to do. That issue is seen at the very beginning of article 2.1. Here we see: ‘Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law.

This gives us that Terrorists cannot be hunted down; the first rule is to capture them alive, whilst knowingly endangering the lives of many. In addition we see articles 6, 7 and 8 messing things up (in light of terrorism); still it is not a failure of the law.

The issue is that these laws were never designed with the abundance of terrorism to the amount we see nowadays. The fact that any armed police action, aimed on capturing terrorists is placing them in harm’s way, but in an unrealistic and unacceptable way. A policeman’s life is set to a higher degree of danger, whilst giving the terrorist a prolonged time to act out the acts of terrorism. It is in this light that we should see ‘May: I’ll rip up human rights laws that impede new terror legislation‘ (at https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/06/theresa-may-rip-up-human-rights-laws-impede-new-terror-legislation). There is a growing concern that the laws of our nations have been a hindrance in dealing with acts of terrorism. In addition we see another return with “It is possible May’s plans could involve seeking further derogations from the ECHR. This is the way the government is seeking to prevent human rights claims against soldiers in future military situations“, the question is not just in the laws, the issue we see with “May was then repeatedly challenged about how the Home Office, police and intelligence services dealt with the information relating to the attackers, after Boris Johnson, her foreign secretary, said MI5 had questions to answer. One of the attackers, Khuram Butt, 27, had been reported to the anti-terror hotline in 2015 and a third attacker, Youssef Zaghba, 22, had been detained by Italian authorities in 2016”, there are questions for MI5 to answer, yet it is not just them. The UK needs to establish to with level SIGINT (GCHQ) has been missing the ball.

Now there are two problems with that assumption of mine. The first is whether the European intelligence services have been keeping its allies and NATO partners up to date on movements. The second is how some allies classify certain people of interest (Youssef Zaghba). Without that knowledge we end up kicking both MI6 and GCHQ without actual cause. So it is not just MI5. We can wonder how certain borders were passed as well as how we will stop certain events from happening. So Boris Johnson is correct that there should be questions and answers, yet in the first only to the smallest degree and in the second, I would want to ask GCHQ a few questions before knocking on the door of Andrew Parker. The fact that he goes straight to the door of MI5, gives an implicit lack of knowledge on the address of Boris Johnson which is not the way we know him, so I wonder what he is playing at, at present. This now gets us to ‘Police and MI5 face further scrutiny after third attack since March’ (at https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/05/police-and-mi5-face-further-scrutiny-after-third-attack-since-march). The part that matters here is “MI5 has a staff of 4,000, with up to 1,000 more promised by 2020, to keep tabs on a list of 3,000 people classified as “subjects of interest”, who included Butt, and to engage in other activities. Counter-terrorism accounts for just over 60% of what MI5 does”. We can hide behind the numbers to some extent as we consider that 1650 keep tabs on 3,000 people. This implied two people to watch per agent, this in a situation where it is about resources. In addition when we consider “Another of the London attackers, Rachid Redouane, was not known to the police or MI5, the police said”. The numbers show the impossibility of the task. In opposition we get that either the UK becomes an unlivable police state, or we take the war to them and prune the HRA to a larger extent. Weirdly enough, that gives us the headache that the HRA is losing potency, something that none of the players want. We basically move a nation into a place where we end up getting ourselves killed. As Richard Barrett, former director of global counter-terrorism operations at MI6 states: “I do not want to live in a state like that”. So even the agencies want a non-police state system, as such we need to consider other evolutions.

So how to go forward?

Until we get an actual union of interest in the Intelligence industry there will be an age of uncertainty. As SIGINT departments unite to set forth the first need of identifying the dangers and replicate that knowledge we are at an impasse. If this reads weird, then let me explain it. The function of GCHQ is to monitor and report to the UK agencies. This is how it should be in the past. In this age of ISIS/ISIL we need to consider that SIGINT agencies set the data in one common database when it concerns terrorists. So basically GCHQ forwards Intel directly to NSO (Netherlands), DGSE (France), SAIC (Germany) and so on. After that (or actually at the same time) the obtained data goes to MI5 and MI6. As filters are removed the whole gets more and quicker intelligence on movements. There is no issue with Brexit or Bremain, this is about European security, and as Europe becomes safer, so will the UK be safer. This path has never been walked because the trouble is with containing intelligence going into the open. In this setting we have intelligence filters this is not a bad thing, but the need in light of the attacks require us all to rethink the issues. There is an additional benefit that the union of data could give additional clusters of information, clustering’s we did not have in the past. It gives voice to not just paths of interests, but a path of people that are a justifiable target in this situation. A path that is partially hindered by the Human Rights Act in a way that was never the intent of the Human Rights Act in the first place.

The issue becomes a larger issue when we see certain media. Now as we exclude the tabloids on mere grounds of inferior intellect and increased factors like being clueless and greed driven through the expanse of emotion, we do get some media that should have known better. So when we see “Dame Stella Rimington, the first female director general of the agency, spoke out this week (6 June) during a keynote speech at 2017’s Infosecurity conference. The former spymaster took the time to urge for a calm response in the wake of recent London terror attacks” (at http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/former-mi5-chief-nobody-really-knows-how-deal-cyber-espionage-1625025), we see in addition “We are facing a world where there’s cyber-espionage now, which nobody really knows how to effectively deal with. We are facing a world of very complex communications which make it very difficult [for] our intelligence services to keep pace with changes taking place.

This is a path that has a few additional repercussions. The first repercussion is seen in the need of new technology to meet the challenges. The second repercussion is seen in combined need to evolve HUMINT, FININT and GEOINT. As money can be transferred through alternative means in faster ways and new methods we see that the terrorists are equipped and given new means to which several intelligence paths have no way to counter at present. The simplest issue of funding terrorist infrastructure through international debit cards is a nightmare to get through. Ordering these debit cards with up to 5,000 euros is getting easier and payment via web becomes increasingly easy. Getting these cards in Western Europe and dispense them to the dangerous elements in the UK is an increased danger as we now have a situation where HUMINT and FININT walk two very different paths. If we do not get an evolved SIGINT solution, we will see an escalation of events whilst the intelligence will fail. At present when a student is found with 2,000 euro a flag is raised (not always), yet when a student is seen with a debit card and 300 Euro, no flag will ever be raised. The cyber path is intervening on several levels increasing the dangers of a successful attack as they just get what they need at their destination. Nowadays a student goes into a car rental place, has his international student ID, picks up a van, pays with the prepaid card and he is off to load it up with explosives. At this point, when properly done, SIGINT, HUMINT and FININT will all have failed to stop this. This is the danger that Dame Stella Rimington is warning us about. And whilst the tabloid jokes are all about the emotions and the blame game towards the intelligence service, we see that failure after failure stacks up, mainly because what the intelligence agencies need is not coming their way. It’s like giving Jenson Button the task of winning the F1 trophy whilst giving him an Edsel to get the job done, which seems a little too unfair on the poor lad.

The world evolved too fast in too many directions and in this terrorists, especially lone wolves could use the system to remain largely invisible until it is too late. It is a collection of what we used to perceive as unrealistic elements ion danger assessment that is now stopping police and agencies in finding the targets trying to hurt innocent civilians. The game has become too unbalanced, and for the most I agree with Richard Barrett. Yet, in equal measure, we see a lack of evolution in technology that the seekers need to classify disseminated information as well as being able to cluster a multitude of databases each filled with variable information to find that needle, hoping that you are even near the right haystack. Consider the scenario I just painted. Finding that person would be near impossible if the Lone Wolf kept to the ground. So where is the validation of blame? There is none and the people actually realise this. It does not change the job, or the challenge. It merely increases the pressure. So when I read: “The third attacker was named as Youssef Zaghba, an Italian national of Moroccan descent, who was living in east London” there is no concern to be elevated into some danger status, yet when we see in addition “is said to have told Italian authorities “I’m going to be a terrorist”, while officers reportedly found Islamic State-related material on his mobile phone when they intercepted him” makes it a different issue (apart from any person proclaiming to become a terrorist to the police). How long until that news reached the UK? In addition, what did the Italians do to stop this possible extremist? When we see a file on Youssef Zaghba in the areas of FININT and SIGINT, what do they reveal? You see, we might not stop all events, yet there is an increased chance that any previous success by these lone wolves will leave us with information that potentially stops the next attack. That will leave us with increased options when SIGINT will start sharing the data internationally.

We are in a phase where we get ourselves killed, not because of the failing of the agencies, but with our complacency regarding human rights and thinking that the agencies did not need certain elements. As we are bragging on Facebook and demanding the government does not collect data, we place ourselves in harm’s way, which is increasingly stupid.

Yet in equal measure spending irresponsibly (read: Jeremy Corbyn’s lame promise) is equally dangerous. You see we need to work on actual solutions, not buy 1000 staff members, 15 servers and hope it will work itself out. That is a recipe for a political pork pie that leaves us with indigestion.

There is a lot that requires doing, let’s not get ourselves killed whilst doing that.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Law, Media, Military, Politics

Democracies are decided through Income

It has been a week, and there is a mountain of events evolving, many all about how a second referendum is needed and in addition to that, the amount of issues that are now surfacing. First we need to take a look at the valid parts. A valid part was seen on Sunday (at https://www.theguardian.com/law/2016/jul/03/parliament-must-decide-whether-or-not-to-leave-the-eu-say-lawyers), where we see ‘Law firm says article 50 cannot be triggered without full debate and vote by parliament‘, which is fair enough. Let’s face it, the people have voted on what they wanted, but in reality, Any Referendum is not legally binding, so legally the Government can ignore the results. Yet, for the Government to ignore such a massive size of a population seems to be a weird approach to democracy. Does the Law firm have a case? The quote “A prominent law firm is taking pre-emptive legal action against the government, following the EU referendum result, to try to ensure article 50 is not triggered without an act of parliament“, which is fair enough, yet this is followed by “on behalf of an anonymous group of clients, solicitors at Mishcon de Reya have been in contact with government lawyers to seek assurances over the process, and plan to pursue it through the courts if they are not satisfied“. I wonder who these ‘so called’ anonymous clients are, perhaps the banks who are now freaking out?

Yet, issues aside, how strong is this case?

First, the current government called for the referendum. Those who sit in the House of Commons called for the referendum and 72.2% of the people reacted and voted, in the end 51.89% were in favour of Brexit!

Now, we see all these new groups, all trying to create mayhem, all crying like the little bitches they are. Boo hoo hoo, so unfair, we want a second vote! It is utterly pathetic. Yet, there are a few issues that should not be ignored. The main reasons this all got started is that certain players took a stand. First there is Nigel Farage who started it and is now resigning as UKIP Leader, he apparently wants his life back. We can argue whether we have pressure issues. Perhaps I should step in as the new leader of UKIP, although, I am and will remain a Conservative. I just have an issue with people who desert when the actual work needs to be done. Second is Boris Johnson, one of the main players in Brexit, he too now seems to be turning his back on the entire process. Yet in all this the votes are still done and many of them were either Labour, Conservatives, Lib Dems and pretty much all members of UKIP. The issues is shown all over the UK. Work must now be done, yet we see a shift, we suddenly see the issues rise after the vote. Is it not interesting how we are all getting played?

Remember the voices of Grexit, how parties were all considering Grexit and how we were being played, only to learn well over a year later that expulsion from the EU was never an option, only voluntary exit is an option! Now that the UK decided to exit it voluntary, we see a massive wave of business people and people in the financial and legal industry making things near impossible to continue. No matter how we see these facts, the issue raised by the solicitors at Mishcon de Reya remains valid. Yet, is it not interesting how none of this was clearly stated all over the place before the vote? Is it not interesting that the media seems to have broomed that interesting part under the nearest rug?

Now consider the quote “The outcome of the referendum itself is not legally binding and for the current or future prime minister to invoke article 50 without the approval of parliament is unlawful“, is it not interesting how that part is equally not brought to light before the vote? It seems to me that the people of England have been played. A vote, whilst the players knew that the referendum was not even the beginning to the change. We always knew that there was more in play and as such the Brexit path was always going to take some time, yet to what extent should we see the path that the UK faces?

Now, I regard the part we see from Mishcon de Reya to be possibly very valid. Yet is that in other cases equally so? In opposition there is the article ‘Nick Clegg calls for general election before article 50 is activated’ (at http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/03/nick-clegg-general-election-article-50-activated-eu-referendum). My initial question becomes “Wasn’t he some politician in days gone past?” And of course, I would be right, it is the former leader of the Lib Dems, not Tim Farron mind you, who is now calling for an election before Article 50 is enacted. The quote “Our country is in a tailspin. An election of a new parliament in which MPs act responsibly to manage our historic divorce from the EU is the only way to forge some order out of the present chaos” gives the impression that we are dealing with some version of Captain Caveman. Consider the quote ‘a new parliament in which MPs act responsibly‘, so is there something wrong with the current parliament? Then we get the quote “before people have had an opportunity to cast a judgment on what life would actually look like outside the EU would be deeply undemocratic“. Eh, was that not what the referendum was all about? People made the vote. Perhaps Nick is now getting active because his daddy was the Chairman of a bank? Perhaps the banks are truly getting scared of the impact Brexit is starting to have on the Dollar and the Dow? This is perhaps speculation on my side, but only to a small degree.

In that regard all the elements are taking turns for the comical. When we see in addition Tony Blair making the quote “for as long as it takes to get an idea of how the other side looks”, I wonder how long parliament reconvened and started re-elections when the UK had WW1 and WW2 to consider. It seems that the players who were not ready to believe the danger that an irresponsible EU had been bringing that the people have had enough and now they are all reconvening for the friends they have in the banks, their friends in big business. As I see it, a wave of people panicking, all in fear of losing the Status Quo, a clear fear that was given in many occasions and the strongest by Mark Carney, Governor of the Bank of England in his presentation to the House of Lords. Too many people complacent on the Status Quo, relying on people not wanting change, now all screaming bloody murder!

That is not the scenario we can afford and it is one that many in the financial industry are hoping for, because the EU cannot be drained as much and it will stop soon thereafter when the EU buckles. A scenario, with Frexit on the horizon that might not be avoided.

Yet there is another item to link here. It is shown in the article discussing the departure of Nigel Farage (at http://www.theguardian.com/politics/commentisfree/2016/jul/04/the-guardian-view-on-nigel-farages-resignation-an-unserious-man-but-a-serious-party), you see the quote given in there is “Yet they never once said what leaving would actually look like. They mocked anyone who expressed concerns“, yes, that is true, mainly because nobody had a clue what would be the result. The presentation at the House of Lords by Mark Carney already implied it. There was no way of knowing and it had never been done before. Yet in all of that the UK stood in a better place than France will be. The UK had remained with the Pound, so this sterling currency has the ability to bounce back fast and remain sterling in more than one way. The article than starts to rely on what I regard to be intentional miscommunication. An opinion article devoid of identity, an editorial, so can we state now that it is Katharine Viner who is now intentionally misdirecting the audience? You see the quote “After 23 June it can no longer parrot the old cry that everything will be better if we are out of Europe. We are out of Europe. So what does Ukip stand for now?“, You see, there is still a likely truth that leaving the EU will hold better results down the line for the UK, but not immediate, that was ALWAYS a given! And the UK is not ‘out of Europe’, it is now merely in the process of seceding from the EU, which is another matter entirely. This path will take time and there are unknowns. It is likely that if played right the UKIP could grow massively, but that requires Nigel’s A-game, a part he is not playing and perhaps his knowledge on how to play an A-game is equally a mystery to him, I do not know.

What I do know is that the Guardian identity less is equally contemptible as they make Nigel Farage out to be, or Boris Johnson for that matter. What is interesting is the quote at the very end, there is a ring of truth in there, but not one the ‘editorial’ is trying to imbue. The quote “If the next Ukip leader possesses the seriousness that Mr Farage ultimately lacked, the consequences could be profound and deeply worrying“, why is that?

You see, nationalism is often treated as a dirty word, but is that true? You see one issue the EU pushed was some open border policy hoping that a blending of cultures would all make it one grey, one shade of ‘whatever’, large corporations were banking on it as they pushed debts through every European nation through political representation. Yet, the UK is and should be a proud nation, sometimes proud for the wrong reasons or in the wrong light of day, but it has a genuine right to pride, as does France, Germany and Italy. The people behind the screens forgot about that and the pushback is massive in all 4 nations. Frexit could be next. The NY Times is saying it won’t be so (at http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/04/opinion/why-frexit-wont-happen.html), didn’t they state the same about Brexit? You see, I am not certain it will happen, but it is a lot more realistic than Brexit was. The French population that has had enough of the EU has surpassed 61%, making it a strong majority at present. That is only the population of France, the power players are now in a direct confrontation with Germany. Any talks between France and Germany have been problematic to say the least in the past, but that was with the UK as a stabilising element, without the UK those two will come to blow sooner rather than later and Italy could be the wildcard here too. Unless it finds levels of stability the EU talks will take an interesting dimension soon enough.

There is one element that makes the NY Times the punching hammer to take notice of. The quote “Now comes the naked truth: For the past 10 years, the European Union has failed to deliver on the main objective it was set up to achieve: shielding its citizens from insecurity. Over the past few days, European leaders, in a state of shock, have hastily identified three priorities on which to focus if they want to save their union: security, migration and economic growth“, it is part of the issues that drove Brexit. Not immigration, not racism, but the realisation that the EU is not delivering, whilst its ECB is stimulating national governmental debts by spending trillions. With ‘investors’ looking towards Mario Draghi on opening new stimulus packages, we all need to wonder why is allowed to take this path. It appears that banks are back in risk taking mode, the ECB is ready to spend another trillion (exact amount is actually not known), yet no one is asking the questions that need to be asked, the reason that got us to Brexit and will soon push forward Frexit stronger and stronger. The mere inability to properly budget within governments and Mario Draghi playing ‘Spending Clause’ in July should worry the population of the EU at large.

The Guardian editorial decided not to take any of that on board, mainly because bashing Farage is still the easiest job to do and the last thing they want is to illuminate that democracy is not set to the most votes, it is set to who has the most influential income to push the votes of others, which was never any form of democracy, not in my book at least.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Politics

Remembering Facts!

The Guardian brings us an article. Not a news article, but an opinion article, that difference is relevant! The article ‘A warning to Gove and Johnson – we won’t forget what you did‘ (at https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul/01/boris-johnson-and-michael-gove-betrayed-britain-over-brexit) is a view. In this case a view by Jonathan Freedland. To get the goods, it is nice to add the by-line of Jonathan. It reads: “Jonathan Freedland is a weekly columnist and writer for the Guardian. He is also a regular contributor to the New York Review of Books and presents BBC Radio 4’s contemporary history series, The Long View. In 2014 he was awarded the Orwell special prize for journalism. He has also published eight books including six bestselling thrillers, the latest being The 3rd Woman. He tweets @freedland“, so this is a person with knowledge and education. The fact that his bestsellers are thrillers could give rise to that notion that this is an artistic man, all fair enough!

So let’s take a look at his views here. I start with the quote “a distraction diverting us from the betrayal larger than any inflicted by one Tory bigwig on another. Now that the news cycle is measured in seconds, there’s a risk that 23 June might come to feel like history, that we might move on too soon. But there can be no moving on until we have reckoned with what exactly was done to the people of these islands – and by whom“. He has a point, yet only to a certain extent. Now we add “Gove, Nigel Farage and Gisela Stuart: they couldn’t have done it without the star power of Boris” and we have ourselves a game. You see, my view opposes this. Yes, Boris might be wealthy and have star power, but let’s be honest, how seriously should we take Boris? As Mayor of London, London grew and thrived and we should remember that Boris had an advantage, he was able to work of the momentum that Ken ‘Red’ Livingstone created. Yet none of that mattered, because Jonathan is going the same route that other members of the press are going. They are trivialising the events of Brexit, the events that drove most of the nation in a direction large corporation’s fear. None of them are addressing the paths of treason that EU politicians have been walking. A path of blind overspending, with no accounting for the acts that they empower. Jonathan, this is a massive part in all this. Did you actually forget about that? Have you seen the map of where Brexit people are? They are not in London, they are not in the large places, they are all over the UK, people who have been in hard places and have seen nothing from their political parties. I warned clearly for all that for 2 years and I was proven right! That is the first part of all this. People who lost their quality of life, whilst Greece gets bailout after bailout. Billions, whilst the political player’s responsible get a free pass, to enjoy the bonus that follows unmonitored spending by the hundreds of billions. That is a Europe no one wants and for the most, the people of the UK do not want to be a part of that any more. And a little surprise is that the people in France are feeling the same way.

Now, you can have a go at Boris for all you like, but making fun of the court jester tends to lose its feeling of humour soon after that.

Now let’s take a look at the quote that makes you lose the plot. When we see “He knew it was best for Britain to remain in the EU. But it served his ambition to argue otherwise. We just weren’t meant to fall for it. Once we had, he panicked, vanishing during a weekend of national crisis before hiding from parliament. He lit the spark then ran away – petrified at the blaze he started“, when exactly did he run away? The fact that you claim that he knew that it was best for Britain to remain in the EU is a first flaw, even if we do not consider his essay in the Independent, you seem to steer clear of overspending for the most of the article and in other articles you wrote earlier. Yet you add the one player to the entire issue that has been a true element of worry. When you state “The outlook for the economy is so bleak, the governor of the Bank of England talks of “economic post-traumatic stress disorder.” The Economist Intelligence Unit projects a 6% contraction by 2020, an 8% decline in investment, rising unemployment, falling tax revenues and public debt to reach 100% of our national output“, I wonder how this quote can trusted? You see, there are two parts in this, the first part is that Mark Carney is talking about a ‘economic post-traumatic stress disorder‘, which is fair enough, Brexit has a massive impact and people will be uncertain, doubtful and at times fearful about what comes next. Mark Carney himself spoke clearly at the House of Lords that there would be risks.

There I agreed wholeheartedly, Mark Carney could not predict the consequences, which I accept and respect, yet I leaned still the smallest part towards Brexit because I feared the blatant overspending of Mario Draghi a lot more than the downdraft that Brexit would cause within the UK.

After that first part Jonathan changes course and adds the speculations of the ‘The Economist Intelligence Unit‘ in the end I regard that to be a financial puppet, part of Schroeder plc, a British multinational asset management company. Schroeder needs Bremain (desperately), so it could maximise its profits. Did you, the reader consider that? Did you consider that we see speculations running into 2020, whilst there is absolutely no way to make any level of reliable predictions past 2017? In addition, if France does get its referendum, which is still realistic, it does not matter what President Hollande states today and last week. There are clear numbers showing that well over 60% of the French population is not in favour of the EU at present. I cannot tell how much of it is due to French National pride and how much of it is due to realisation that the EU is not bringing France any benefits and has not been doing so for some time now. There is a growing realisation that it was just to appease America and the need to counter with one currency (or at least a lot less than 7 major currencies).

All elements that can be read from many reliable news sources, all events that Jonathan Freedland seems to ignore (which is his right). I agree that there are issues with Brexit, there always would be and Boris Johnson was never the most serious party to listen to, but Michael Gove was a serious reason and even if we ignore Nigel Farage for the most, he started Brexit reasoning on sound issues, those issues were that the EU have become an administrative hindrance and not a gateway to opportunity for all, just for large corporations getting more and more loopholes, these parts he proved!

As stated, I remained on the fence for the longest of times and Mark Carney almost brought me back into the Bremain side, yet when we see the economic threats and fear mongering from elements like Peter Harrison (aka Big Cheese of Schroeder’s) we need to wonder who is serving who.

This is why I made sure that you realise that this was an opinion article in the Guardian. Jonathan writes up a good storm (6 bestsellers will give ample experience in this) and he is entitled to his vision and version of what he regards to be the facts. I need to get to the final part with the quote he offers “the appalling sight of Gove on Friday, proclaiming himself a proud believer in the UK even though it was obvious to anyone who cared to look that a leave vote would propel Scotland towards saying yes in a second independence referendum. The more honest leavers admit – as Melanie Phillips did when the two of us appeared on Newsnight this week – that they believe the break-up of the union is a price worth paying for the prize of sovereignty“, is a fair call, but I do not agree. You see, I have stated for around 2 years that we as a Commonwealth need to truly unite, especially in light of the utter idiotic acts by the US and its greed and need for whatever they do not have. First the US sets the stage of overspending and now that they are bankrupt they are trying to change the rules of the game by giving all rights to big business whilst drowning small innovators behind a high threshold. In that same light consider the ‘another Scottish independence referendum’. There is already ample evidence that Scotland cannot survive independence because they cannot set a proper budget. Making Scotland the next Greece to be. Is that fair? Well, it would be the result of short minded acts at present. It is even less clear why an independence would be pursued when you consider the quote “Its trade within the UK now makes up nearly two-thirds of its overall exports, worth £48.5bn, compared with only 15% with the EU” and until Scotland grows its opportunity to have a balanced budget without the oil, any option to survive will be a non-existing one. A united Commonwealth would better Scotland a lot more, especially if Scotland becomes India’s beachhead for growing its interest in Western-Europe and Scandinavia. I personally still believe that Scotland has options, but yes, it is speculative from my side. My question becomes, why is Scotland not growing its business options?

Now, there is a chance that Jonathan is right and the ‘Union’ will break up to some extent. I don’t believe it to be overly realistic, but I have learned to remain cautious when ‘national’ pride is in play and the Scots are proud beyond believe. I have been in favour of them growing independently but I was not in favour of the referendum. The reason was that Scotland cannot hold its budget and would grow only in debt from the moment it went it alone. Even if the oil would remain at the current price, that voice would not be good. The oil fields are producing a little less and only if Scotland could get a balanced budget without the oil would they stand a reasonable chance. That was not to be! Which is why my view is the way it is regarding Scotland.

So as we are remembering facts, we need to add another element, one that has been ignored by the press at large! That can be seen in an article (at https://www.cchdaily.co.uk/frc-look-pwc-audit-bhs). It is one side I have been on the hunt for, for some time now. You see, the issue with Tesco is one that makes me wonder why PwC is allowed to remain in business The quote “The regulator is already investigating PwC’s handling of another retailer’s accounts, after Tesco discovered a £263m ‘black hole’ related to the way supplier payments were booked. This FRC inquiry is looking at Tesco’s financial statements for the years ended 25 February 2012, 23 February 2013 and 22 February 2014 and the firm’s ‘conduct in relation to the matters reported in the company’s interim results for the 26 weeks ended 23 August 2014’” we should have a tidal wave of questions, not just towards the Guardian, but basically towards all newspapers who have been eagerly ignoring the issue past the initial events of 2014. We see part of this in a book called ‘Deep Integration: How Transatlantic Markets are Leading Globalization‘ (Daniel Sheldon Hamilton, Joseph P. Quinlan, 2005) we see on page 200 “the introduction of more stringent listing rules on national stock exchanges and the enforcement of the IFRA, enforcement of accounting rules in the EU is still national and there is no EU enforcement body“, in addition on that same page we get “even though the Committee of European Security Regulators (CESR) plays an important role, it does not have ‘EU enforcement leverages’ or the necessary authority to allow for accounting standards across both sides of the Atlantic offering equivalence“, now remember that this was published in 2005. The title ‘Aiming for Global Accounting Standards‘ by  Kees Camfferman and Stephen A. Zeff released in 2015 show that this is still a hot potato not dealt with, so as we all know how important the issue is, my slightly less political correct question becomes “Why the fuck do we have an EU to begin with?” Does that question make sense?

You see, part of the facts are that any nation can grow when proper taxation is levied so that a nation can make sure that its citizens gets ample health care, education and support. Big business has been quite successful to avoid doing their bit and hiding behind globalisation and non-taxation. Wealth management, accounting firms and other players have been maximising their profits through the EU. They need their houses, cars, hookers and dope to remain ego-central (learnings from ‘Inside Job (2010)‘). I feel that the UK as a nation, no longer hindered by the EU can actually grow its nation and grow its national side, a side that most large corporations dread. Now, this latter part is speculative on my side. Yet, in light of what Jonathan Freedland writes, is it less valid, or is it incorrect?

I am asking you because you should do what is right, what is best for you and your family. So as you consider how ‘well’ you might be in an EU, consider how the large corporations are all about ‘what is best for business’, they are true, but their truth is about maximising profits for them, their board of directors and THEIR shareholders. Yet there are a few more parts to look at. In this regard and in light of what a few other European nations are doing, I would like to call for John Oliver (at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nh0ac5HUpDU). The UK most famous Ashton Villa fan known for ‘Last Week Tonight‘ seems to have mindset that is sharper than a scalpel. He gives good voice and brings comedy the way we can appreciate this.

At 0:21 we get the horse meat reference, which is nice as it is the EU rules that seems to have been central in getting cheap meat from places like Poland only to realise that some places regard Bovine and Equine as one and the same, which is interesting as only Scrabble should value Horsemeat and Equine above Bovine. At 1:08 he gives blame to David Cameron regarding the referendum, yet, he negates to mention that the public at large wanted one. At that point there was a threat that Brexit could happen, but there were no convincing numbers it would pass. Tactically David Cameron made a sound decision. The problem came from Italy in the shape of Mario Draghi as he decided to play Stimulus Claus spending trillions and 2 days before the elections he decided to voice his willingness to spend even more in the months to come. Spend it where? The UK? Not likely. So the EU, the ECB and financial Status Quo fans decided to spend money that they never had in the first place. The British population at large have had enough of that as do people all over Europe. Now we see scores of sore losers request a new referendum. Hoping that the initial bad news cycle, which would always happen, will scare the minimum 2% into the Bremain side. How is that democratic? So at 1:55 we get the Independence Day references, which is funny when you consider that the sequel launched on the same day as the referendum. Yet the truth is still in that part, many nations have been ‘hindered’ by EU rules on several fields, including immigrant rapists that cannot be evicted because they have a right to a family life. Which is an extreme example. What is more important is that the EU is unable and unwilling to hold overspending governments to account, the EU itself is overspending by trillions, so there is a common theme here. Money existing or not must flow, which is utterly unacceptable and it should be unacceptable to everyone. Still, John Oliver remains entertaining and he never lies to you. I agree that the quote on 350 million to the NHS is overstated, but not irrelevant, because the NHS surely needs it, yet the fact that all 100% went there is wishful thinking. Perhaps political wishful thinking, which tends to be not too realistic and Nigel Farage could never guarantee that. Fair call and an open opportunity for comedy, John Oliver took it. Yes, he is correct, the UK will be in for a rough EU, we all knew that this would happen and other questions remain. Yet the number one issue is not addressed, it is the overspending of a number of elements, one issue that too many people have. Just like PwC, issues not covered and all the media is now hiding behind comedians regarding ‘less educated voters‘. The truth is not given, the facts are not shown. Hiding behind the few that do not represent the populous. How are those facts looking?

Just remember that the Media at large seems to need large financial and large corporations, so how are we told the truth? I can only advice you to look around, learn the facts and question everything you read, including what I write here. I believe that I am honestly informing you, but you should not accept that premise as a given.

Only when you are critical of everything, will you possibly discover the truth of anything.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Politics